Thursday, August 7, 2008

Well, that's what she calls herself, anyway. She has found my blog via this post. Of course, she couldn't let it go--she offered her own commentary on her LiveJournal space (which, like many feminist blogs, does not have a very open commenting policy). Let's look at some of the things she said. My original comments are posted, followed by her replies, and then by my rejoinders.

----I said: If you are woman, and if you want both genders to be treated with equal dignity in our society, then stop calling yourself a "feminist".

The feminist:"Yeah, because obviously this guy is the sole and final authority on what feminism is and isn't."

My reply: Are feminists the sole and final authority on determining what equality is?----I said: Feminism is best defined as a political ideology that concerns itself with the advancement of women. Period. Nothing else.

The feminist: "Wait. Is there something wrong with the advancement of women? Did I miss something here?"

My reply: Yes, in fact, you did miss something (or rather, you left it out--conveniently). It's the next couple of sentences in the paragraph you quoted. I actually said: "Yet, even in defining the word, we must take into consideration how feminism is widely practiced. All too often, feminism promotes women at the expense of other human beings (men and children). Inasmuch as feminists have repeatedly failed to rectify this situation, they no longer deserve any modicum of respect."

Puts a different spin on my words, doesn't it? But, alas, I am not surprised to find myself misrepresented by a feminist.----I said: I put feminism on the same level as child pornography.

The feminist:"Hey, I always said that believing that women are people to is exactly the same thing as sexually abusing children!"

My reply: Actually, if you substitute the word "men" for "women" in your sentence, I think you might have an apt description of how feminists feel about men. Anyway, the feminist once again left off the context of my original statement, which reads: "I put feminism on the same level as child pornography. Are you taken aback at that statement? Ask yourself this: Is the murder of innocent children better than the sexual abuse of them? Feminism is most assuredly responsible for the death of millions of babies. Not only that, it is also responsible for creating a debased culture where men and boys are routinely and systematically dehumanized."

Of course, the feminist exclaims that she won't "dignify" my statement. I wonder if she dignifies this t-shirt (which, of course, dignifies this). Ah, yes, feminism. The radical notion that "women are people" ... unless they are still in their mothers' wombs. I guess the sex-selective abortions that occur in third-world countries must cause the feminists no small amount of grief. Because the babies are human? No. Because they are female. So, gender trumps the humanity of a person, right? But wait, I thought feminism was about remedying that!----I said: The moment you call yourself a feminist is the moment I have stopped taking you seriously. Why? Because you have never taken seriously the concerns of men.

The feminist:"I keep forgetting, it's the duty of feminists to put aside their trivial concerns about the welfare of women and see to men's needs. Silly me!"

My reply: I am not surprised at your response. The priceless logic of the quintessential feminist: "Why should I take the concerns of men seriously? They're the oppressors! Oh, by the way, women's issues are everyone's issues! Men can benefit from feminism! Why don't they take us more seriously?!"

123 comments:

I'm going to be brave and leave a comment. Historical feminism sought to give women basic rights--the vote, education, equal pay for equal work. Those things are positive. Female suffragettes were truly treated as criminals just for trying to secure the right to vote. That's as outrageous as the Jim Crow laws of the South or grandfather clauses that prevented people from voting. We cannot forget how classist our nation once was--at one time only MALE PROPERTY OWNERS had the right to vote. Now as women are often sole heads of household in increasing numbers, they need these things more than ever. Some feminists also take the cause of women in India being set on fire so that the man is free to collect another dowry, or girl babies in China being killed. If believing that we are all entitled to basic human rights makes me a feminist, then call me one. But having these basic human rights is not what you're talking about, is it?

Voting is hardly a basic human right. It is a privilege. After all, we don't let children, non-citizens, or felons vote, even though all these people are humans.

And women's suffrage has had some pretty adverse effects on individual liberty. It is no accident that expansion of the size and reach of government just happens to coincide with women getting the vote. Personally, I think voting should be severely restricted, or even eliminated altogether.

That's as outrageous as the Jim Crow laws of the South or grandfather clauses that prevented people from voting.

Jim Crow laws weren't limited to the South. And as long as public restrooms are segregated by gender, governments can still be said to discriminate in the Jim Crow fashion. I suppose integrating such facilities is a debate for another day, though.

We cannot forget how classist our nation once was--at one time only MALE PROPERTY OWNERS had the right to vote.

Socio-economic class has nothing to do with having the vote. Wealthy women existed prior to getting the vote. There were even wealthy slave-owning blacks in the South during the days of slavery.

Complaining about "class" in America is a pretty naive thing to do, as any length of time spent in, say, England, will attest. Class distinctions exist in a very real fashion in the Old World. We're egalitarian as hell compared to them.

Some feminists also take the cause of women in India being set on fire so that the man is free to collect another dowry, or girl babies in China being killed.

SOME feminists, eh? I guess the rest of them don't have a problem with innocent people being killed needlessly.

If believing that we are all entitled to basic human rights makes me a feminist, then call me one.

Basic human rights have nothing to do with feminism. Feminism is about procuring privileges for women, regardless of the cost to men, while simultaneously attempting to absolve women of any responsibility for anything. It is an attempt at creating a feudal system whereby all women are lords and all men are serfs.

This is easy to demonstrate: there are no feminists clamouring for gender equality when it comes to the draft, or prison terms, or military standards of fitness, or alimony and child custody awards, or anything else where equality would not benefit women.

Ya know....if I ever have momentary and fleeting thoughts that modern feminism may me a productive force in the world all I have to do is read a feminist blog. It really is quite handy for reminding me that even though Susan B. Anthony said "Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less" years ago most feminists still subscribe to this idea today...and don't grasp that the statement does not represent equality. I don't always agree with you Anakin, but in this case kudos for your reasonable response. Interesting contrast between how you dealt with her comments and the comments she and her readers made on her blog, isn't there?

Even if you accept the premise that women's suffrage and equal job/equal pay are good things--the jury is still out regarding the ramifications of both--one can hardly suggest that (1) the 50 million dead babies, and (2) the population debacle of Western Civilization are worth the "benefits".

Interestingly enough, the filter here at Trinity would not even let me go to this woman's website. I got the "adult content" message. I think it is rather amazing that people who complain so much about not being offended can be so offensive!

"If believing that we are all entitled to basic human rights makes me a feminist, then call me one"

That's the problem, isn't it? Feminists do not believe in basic human rights for all. Which was what Anakin was trying to get through to RIF (Raging Indoctrinated Feminist). I hope that you're not calling yourself one!

I'll go further than Anakin does and state uncategorically that feminists are bigoted hate group on par with La Raza, and the KKK.

"Now as women are often sole heads of household in increasing numbers, they need these things more than ever"

To determine if this statement is true or not, we should ask ourselves this question:

"Exactly how did these women become sole heads of households anyway?"

Her profile is pretty apt: "An Intransigent Feminist Twit". She uses it as a badge of honor. I call it truth in labelling.

Lastly, I noted that she didn't attempt to refute anything that you said, Anakin. She resorted to polemics and personal attacks. Heck I'm surprised she didn't impugn your manhood or call you gay or something. Although had it gone on long enough, that was probably coming.

If I might be a feminist for what I wrote, there is no doubt in my mind that some of y'all are chauvanists--though you don't believe you are. I daresay that's not very Christian. One cannot blame ALL the ills of our modern society on women's sufferage. Women are only PART of the equation. "we" Americans certainly believed that voting was a citizen's right and taxation without representation was certainly a worthwhile cause then. If the right to vote is not a right but a priveledge, then why did we even bother with that.

Personally, I tried my hand at ROTC, but my short stature and physical abilities were not a match for military life. I was considered to be a lesbian feminist for trying that.

I know of a Christian woman who recently became sole head of household because her husband dishonored their vows and had an affair. She has 4 children. Some may become sole heads of household through divorce that is not their own idea. Think before you punish all.

Owning property makes one wealthy and that is classist. Restricting the vote to property owners alone proved unwise also. Do you support feudalism? Because that's what some of you sound like. Voting is for citizens. Women are citizens. Have you gone so far in being against feminism that you are now against all women?

Women alone are not responsible for the legality of abortion or the access to it. In 1973, most doctors were men.

Women alone did not pass prohibition or repeal it.

Women alone did not elect any single president.

I would agree with you that some feminists go too far. Some are extremists.

Again, both men and women are citizens and citizens have rights. Taking rights away is not the solution.

I am supporting my position more than I am really reacting to that article. She's taking things too far.

PS Don't be ridiculous in bringing up bathrooms unless we are going to have bunch of individual private bathrooms not stalls that pervs of either sex can look under with mirrors or engage in other impropriety that already goes on at place like say the infamous Studio 54

It is downright silly to claim men controlled government during economic downturns; thus men are responsible. This is a logically fallacy. It doesn't begin to answer the arguments of men who simply suggest that very un-biblical feminism and egalitarianism enforced by government (and tacitly supported by many Christian denominations) are directly responsible for social breakdown, dramatically reduced incidence of marriage, and social pathology.

Silly? It is downright silly to keep agonizing over the few "raging indoctrinated feminists" that still exist -- as if they have any influence now!

All this hang-wringing over a few wingnut websites! Do you guys realize that you've had the attention of quite a few intelligent, sympathetic women here who have been quite willing to listen to all kinds of extreme views, from the ridiculous to the sublime, many of which would blow the tops even off the most traditionally minded. But for the sake of intellectual discourse and genuine compassion, they've suspended or softened many of their counterpoints. But for what?

You guys demand your "rights", using the same victim language of the feminists you claim to abhor, but even when indulged by your empathetic sisters, who never demand equal air time, IT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU.

Just like the feminists of late last century, you treat the supportive as adversaries and talk only in terms of your own interests, so sooner or later, no one outside of your own coterie will even care. Then all you're left with here is a bunch of kvetching old bachelors.

Anon 1--honey!! Someone else asserted that women's sufferage was to blame for the ills of society, especially an oversized government. I was saying that it wasn't possible that it was women's sufferage alone that caused that, but it was more likely the fault of the great depression and FDR's 3 term presidency that truly increased the size of the government and the government was, coincidentally run by men--not female sufferagettes. Not saying men were RESPONSIBLE, just saying that men were more in control than women and their right to vote.

And yes, I did say RIGHT to vote. In the United States citizens have rights guaranteed by the Constitution which has been Ratified and Ammended according to law. If you don't like what it says, do something to change it. Let's not talk of taking away rights. However, I say that with certain conditions--I still do not like Roe v. Wade and it's effect on society.

The holy grail for feminists is the "right to vote" they ignore one simple fact.MEN the vast majority of MEN DID NOT have the right to vote for most of history. Those men at the top and quite a few women:( Queen Elizabeth of England Catherine "the great")These rulers imposed their brutality and power MOSTLY over MEN!!!

In the UK the suffragettes resorted to terrorism to get the vote they did not hesitate to support men getting the draft - that is men FORCED to go to war these same suffragettes verbally abused men who were not at war (often these men were veterans or unfit for service)and women handed out white feathers.

When did women get the vote in England?

A mere 10 YEARS after men!!!

I am sure many men blown to pieces or left maimed or worse would have given women their vote if it meant losing the "male privilege" of being forced to go to war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS1dO0JC2EE

The accusation of "chauvinism"is classic feminist speak. No one is more chauvinistic than feminists. Most women are chauvinistic in the extreme only seeing the women's side of anything and always supporting each other whether in the right or the wrong.So using the word they unconsciously accuse others of something for which they are more than guilty of themselves.Feminism is overits morally bankrupt and has lost its best minds long ago. It is essentially lesbians at mischief that is all.

Savvy: Can you not read? The object of the attack here is feminists, not women.

Fact is, if all you can hang your hat on is "right to vote" (which was in play long before Betty Friedan came along) and "equal job/equal pay" (which was becoming the standard due to the basic laws of economics), then feminists cannot make a credible case that the "gains" they have made are worth the price that we have paid for their advancement.

You are more than free to make the contrarian case, but so far none of the dissenters over here, or on my blog, have done so.

For guys who love to beat their chests about "freedom", it's astounding how you all can just sit back when someone like Triton suggests that women shouldn't be able to vote.

Yet look at the uproar when someone points out even if there have been costs, there may have been some good things that have come out of feminism. No grey allowed here -- this is only a black and white affair.

No matter how reasonably you discuss the pros and cons of feminism here, to make even the slightest reference to the former will be met with charges of illiteracy, chauvinism, lesbianism and downright hysteria.

Engaging them does not lead to any mutual understanding, because, like the feminists they denounce, they see themselves as having been already expended oh-so-much effort at understanding us and now they think it's THEIR TURN to receive, rather than give, understanding.

** either that, or they've just cottoned onto another kind of "negative attention seeking", like little boys who say things to "upset" the girls, because they can't find any other way of engaging them. **

Amir,

If one of the "losses" of feminism is to be condemned as unfeminine by a bunch of blustering, gun-toting, conspiracy theory-obsessed bores who whinge non-stop about feminism and how tough it's made things for them, then actually, I'd consider that to be a "gain".

That you have failed to address substantive criticisms is noteworthy. Whoever called feminists "unfeminine"? I have, however, suggested that the "gains" of the feminist movement were (a) in play or already in progress long before Betty Friedan came along, and (b) even accepted at face value, not worth the price that has been paid.

Are you suggesting that 50 million dead children is worth "equal job/equal pay"?

This is why Anakin doesn't take seriously anyone who calls himself or herself a feminist: they have no sense of proportion.

Attacking women's right to vote is attacking all women, not just feminists.

While others--such as Vox Day--make their case against suffrage, my point is that the gains of feminism (including suffrage) are not worth the price that has been paid in human life.

That is, unless you believe that 50 million dead children, a sexual revolution that has left large numbers of women going late into adulthood unmarried and childless, and a demographic crisis that will threaten the economic stability of Western civilization, are worth the "gains".

What makes the whole situation more damning is that the biggest gain of the feminists--suffrage--was already in the Constitution long before the advent of modern feminism.

So just what gain--or set of gains--of feminism do you wish to state are worth, in whole or part, the price that has been paid?

No matter how reasonably you discuss the pros and cons of feminism here, to make even the slightest reference to the former will be met with charges of illiteracy, chauvinism, lesbianism and downright hysteria.

That's because there is nothing reasonable about feminism. It has nothing to do with equality, which any idiot should be able to see at a glance. "Equality" is just a slogan used to justify a power grab.

I think probably the only thing of worth in this debate on Feminism was the point that Savvy made about the Depression.

Personally, FDR's rise to power in the USA as President brought a lot of changes to America that I seriously can't stand (Globalism being one of them).

However, that is neither here nor there.

Savvy, your definition of Feminism is lacking. You have defined it by what it has done that is good. However, there are women out there who are radically against feminism who have done the same exact things. If you are going to define feminism by what it does, you need a complete picture. You do not need to be a feminist to be against rape, abuse, abortion, etc.

If you take a cold, hard look at feminism and what it purports (read a feminist's blog and get an idea of how radically anti-men they are), it is unbiblical. If you take a cold, hard look at scripture (especially Genesis, Ephesians, and Corinthians), you see a very DIFFERENT model of womanhood and manhood than is purported by Feminists.

There is an attitude held by feminists that is wrong - that is, men are dirt and women are goddesses. They don't have to say it for it to be dripping from their words and actions. For this reason, when a woman defines herself as a feminist, she will lose all of a man (of worth)'s respect - because by defining yourself as such, you are claiming yourself void of respect for them.

It is true that women's suffrage has led to a larger government *in part*. I think you definitly hit on something about FDR, though, and it would be nice for some of the men to acknowledge that before attacking the rest of your argument.

However, your arguments as a whole are not going to stand up to criticism.

Feminist Anonymous (as opposed to the anti-feminist anonymous) makes a good point, though. The minute you describe yourself as a "feminist" on these pages, you have lost all respect and they will not treat you or your arugments with any respect...with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions (Anakin and Amir being a couple). Maybe no respect for you personally, but they will treat your arguments logically.

EVEN if your definition of "feminism" is vastly different than their's.

But, I would sincerely encourage you to get a more accurate definition of Feminism, rather than relying on all the good things they've done.

I only said IF being against x, y and z make me a feminist, then call me one. (Only then.) I ask as Amir did--Can you not read?

I remember (Anon) pointing out that only white male property owners had the right to vote from the first--in pointing that out, that does mean that the majority of men were not voting as then it was considered that you had no real definiable interest id you didn't own property.

I didn't realize I would be called to the carpet for defending all of feminism. I just brought up one particular point which I thought was positive. It's nighly possible that many things in our nation would have changed even if women had never been granted the right to vote, or had been granted it later. I still do not think, Amir that women alone are to blame for these changes--nor feminists alone. Our society has made quite a few changes without radical feminism. Just look at the sexuality represented on TV. That was made possible because of the invention and popularity of birth control. The sexual revolution and the modern "marriage strike" might have happened anyway. Besides, what do you suggest? A radical goverment takeover a-la-taliban where wmen are forced to cover themselves and stoned if they go out in public alone? That'll solve society's problems!!

I do NOT support or argue for feminism, I was just making 1 point. I also made a distinction between historical feminism and radical/modern feminism (I think there's a difference) and got a bunch of crap thown at me.

It is true that women's suffrage has led to a larger government *in part*. I think you definitly hit on something about FDR, though, and it would be nice for some of the men to acknowledge that before attacking the rest of your argument.

I despise FDR as much as anybody. He was a vile man whose willingness to usurp the Constitution has since only been approached by George W. Bush.

Having said that, I am unable at this time to find much data on the percentages of men and women who voted for him. It's possible he would have won without the women's vote, but then again, maybe not.

Over the long term, though, the trend is for government to increase and freedoms to be infringed at a significantly greater rate when women have the vote.

(Vox has done a number of blog posts on this subject, including all sorts of statistics, but I can't seem to find them. This one is the best I could come up with. I really don't like the Blogger search engine.)

Well, you're free to disagree but so far you haven't even begun to offer anything that remotely looks like a compelling argument for your point of view.

Well, I did provide a link that lists a few freedoms that have been lost since women got the vote in America. It wasn't much, but it was more than you (or anyone else) has provided as rebuttal. Your reply was basically "naive" and "oversimplifies". And that was it.

I will, however, try to find the stuff I read a while back that seems to elude me now. In the meantime, here is a tidbit, which I will reproduce here since my links often go un-clicked:

Lott, an economist and senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, stoked controversy in the past with his book "More Guns, Less Crime." And in his latest, he doesn't shy away from tackling contentious issues, such as election reform, problematic public schools, the apparent link between abortion and crime and affirmative action.

In the second part of a two-part interview with Cybercast News Service, Lott discussed the assertions made in his new book and responded to some of his critics.

Cybercast News Service: In your book, you discuss a correlation between granting women the right to vote and the growth of government -- could you explain?

John Lott: There's been a puzzle that's been around academics for decades about why government started to grow when it did. From the beginning of the country to the 1920s, the federal government had been about 2 to 3 percent of GNP. You'd have a war sometimes and it would go up. After the war was over, government would go back down to where had been previously. But it began to grow through the 20s and the 30s and 40s.

You see a phenomenon that's true around the world, during about 50 years of time in which government began to grow. I've noticed from looking around at these countries that the government growth seemed to coincide with when women were given the right to vote in these places.

I looked at where women were given right to vote in the United States from the first state in 1868 to the last state in 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. One of the interesting things here is that some states voluntarily gave women the right to vote, and some were forced to because of the 19th Amendment. ...Is it the fact that you gave women the right to vote that caused the government to grow, or is it that the state was more liberal and wanted to give women the right to vote at the same time they wanted government to get bigger?

The fact that you see this growth in the states that voluntarily gave women the right to vote before the ones that were forced to indicates that it was giving women the right to vote and not just some other factor changing at the same time.

The effect is dramatic. If you look at 10 years prior to when a state gives women the right to vote, you find expenditures and revenues were flat. Once women were given the right to vote, the next year you see an increase in government expenditures. It keeps going up dramatically. In 10 years, government expenditures and revenue doubled in real terms. That growth follows closely with the percent of voters who were women.

After that you basically get to the 1960s, and what happens then is you have a big increase in divorce, and divorce tends to make women a lot more liberal than they were previously. They are more likely to depend on the government for some safety net or protection. We see this in how women's political views change over a lifetime.

Young single women are more liberal than young single men. When they get married, about half that gap disappears. When they have kids, about half of the remaining gap disappears, so about 75 percent of the original gap. If they get divorced, they become much more liberal than they were to begin with. Men pretty much stay in the same place all their life.

When a woman is on her own, she's more likely to support a more progressive income tax. But if she gets married and has kids, she's more likely to oppose those sorts of taxes. There would be similar changes to other types of social programs. Women tend to be more risk averse and more likely to turn to the government for these government programs.

The discussion about divorce is itself driven a lot by government. One of the big changes we had in the 1960s and 1970s was the movement from at-fault to no-fault divorce. When you had at-fault divorce, women were much more protected. If a man wanted to get a divorce, he had to get the wife to agree to a divorce. He had to pay her off, and give her more assets to get her to agree. So her investment in maybe staying home a lot and taking care of the family were much more likely to be protected than they are now.

Now when you have no-fault, if a man wants to get a divorce, the woman almost has to pay him in order to stay in the relationship. Many women are more reticent to stay at home and take care of kids. In this case, they have a big incentive to (work) in case there is a divorce later on-they can have a job and an income they can depend on. Not only do these (divorce) laws, explain why women become more liberal, but they also explain why women are having fewer kids.

Thank you for this response. I will try to look at the materials at some point. I'm still not sure that, prima facie, I find the whole notion convincing, but you have at least made and effort to present something substantial and I appreciate that (also appreciate the fact that it seems to be from actual reliable sources).

For the record, at this time, here's what I feel the beginnings of a compelling argument would have to include:

1.) A definition of freedom that makes it clear precisely what you mean when you use that term along with an argument that said definition is preferable to other possible definitions.

2.) An argument defending the notion that freedom as you define it is a good to the extent that any curtailment of said freedom is automatically and in all cases a bad thing. That is to say, that other goods that we may also value are not also goods to the extent that they may justify curtailment of freedom as you have defined it (this would also include an arguement for the belief that any growth in the size of government for any reason whatsoever is necessarily bad.)

3.) Assuming you have establised the first two points, an argument showing how giving women the vote must, of necessity, lead to the growth of government and curtailment of freedom as you have defined it.

4.) An argument showing how, in a liberal-democratic society and participatory democracy in which citizenship and full personhood is typically seen to include voting rights, one can legitimately deny women the right to vote without, in some way, at least by suggestion, diminishing their personhood. (I think this was Savvy's point when she commented about why we bothered to fight a war to secure, among other things, the right to vote, if in fact voting is not really a right for all.)

Oh, also, concerning this last point, if voting is a priviledge rather than a right, as you claim, then who gets to decide who has that priviledge? This strikes me as bad precedent, giving some people the right to decide whether others are fit to have a say in public affairs.

I guess that's it for now. Can't think of anything else at this moment anyway.

Farmer Tom on Boundless made one of the best comments I had ever heard concerning Women's votes correlating with increase in government - and Lotte's details on liberal views in women seems to support what Tom had said -

Women value security over all else. This is not a bad thing, necessarily. With the ability to reproduce and tending to be the one in need of more support, women who lack support tend to seek that support in the government.

Women who are married are less liberal - and need less external support as their support is now found in their husband.

After a divorce, the women are even more liberal - enforcing the previously held beliefs that a woman NEEDS to find support in other ways and means.

A liberal government provides the support that a single woman needs. In general, women are not making as much money (and I think for good reason as well...I have arguments to support this theory but its not relevant to this discussion), they are not as likely to put in as much time as men are to make ends meet, and favor different priorities than men (PLEASE note by "in general" at the beginning of this sentence).

Also, women are more "relational". We see more in small pictures (at individual people) than at big pictures. We see the liberal idea of increasing minimum wage as a good thing because it helps individuals make a living. However, we fail to see the bigger picture that as the minimum wage increases, corporations have to spend more money on employees, some of which can't afford it - eventually leading to a rise in unemployment (Thank you, dad, for this lesson in economics).

We see that making health care more available and affordable for all a good thing for individuals, but fail to see how that can have a detrimental effect on the quality of health care given and the availability of qualified physicians.

And then we get angry and upset when men seem to over look our concern for the human being in favor of the system as a whole - where it would do them credit to acknowledge, it would do us credit for a more complete explanation...

As to your first two points, Someone, those are matters of political ideology. Anakin and I are libertarians and Christians, so our opinions should be interpreted within that framework. A socialist, on the other hand, would be all in favour of women's suffrage for the same reason libertarians should be opposed to it. The Italian Fascists, for example, included women's suffrage in their political platform.

3.) Assuming you have establised the first two points, an argument showing how giving women the vote must, of necessity, lead to the growth of government and curtailment of freedom as you have defined it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "of necessity". Storm clouds don't "of necessity" bring rain, but that hardly invalidates the connection between storm clouds and rain. A trend doesn't have to be valid in every single example in order to be considered a truism.

4.) An argument showing how, in a liberal-democratic society and participatory democracy in which citizenship and full personhood is typically seen to include voting rights, one can legitimately deny women the right to vote without, in some way, at least by suggestion, diminishing their personhood.

It's quite simple; what is "typically seen" is a mirage, nothing more than grade school propaganda. I could claim that not being able to own a Lamborghini diminishes my personhood, but I think we all agree that that would be ridiculous, regardless of how sincere I was in my belief.

As Christians, we should look to the Lord and His Bible for our definitions of personhood, not to whatever we were taught in public schools.

Voting (except in the case of unanimous votes) is nothing more than a rationalized way of taking something from someone without that person's permission. The Bible says "Thou shalt not steal". It does not say "Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote".

As an aside, I would also repeat the fact that we don't let children vote. If voting = personhood, then we should be working to enfranchise 4-year-olds. Is this really what y'all want?

I think this was Savvy's point when she commented about why we bothered to fight a war to secure, among other things, the right to vote, if in fact voting is not really a right for all.

We fought a war over taxes, not votes. Had Parliament repealed some of the tax burden on the colonies, there is every reason to believe the Revolution would not have happened.

And in any event, I doubt the Founding Fathers would have looked too kindly on the idea of universal suffrage. Using the Revolution to support that point of view is a bit spurious.

Triton--Interesting and disturbing theories. I had heard of some people saying that fewer unwanted babies = less crime. Interestingly, some of the most basic moves toward big government were happening long before universal sufferage.

>>In 1647, Massachusetts Puritans enacted the second law, after Scotland in 1616,[9] establishing universal public schools in the English-speaking world to block the attempts by "ould deluder Satan to keepe men from the whole knowledge of the Scriptures".[10] Each settlement larger than 50 families was required to pay a schoolmaster to teach reading, writing and religious doctrine to the children in the community. Beginning in 1670, Massachusetts provided tax funding for school maintenance. This model was then copied throughout the colonies, and even throughout the world.

>>Many children did not attend public school for the first two centuries. It was not until 1852 that Massachusetts became the first state to require attendance by students aged 6 through 16, and it was not until 1918 that all states had compulsory attendance laws. High schools did not generally exist until after the Civil War, and kindergarten did not exist until it was created in St. Louis in 1873. http://www.conservapedia.com/Public_schools

This of couse, takes alot of money and people to maintain and enforce. the amount has increased throughout the years. Big government in one area will lead to big government in more areas.

And it seems like the train was running in that direction in many areas--social justice, welfare, education, etc--BEFORE women were granted sufferage.

I read through the links that Triton left. There were a few typos that would have been caught by running spell check. Any secretary would know that.

If we do some not too hard thinking, we realize that government spending also went up as1. Population increased2. The automobile was invented and highways were built and maintained (The interstate system was to make troop transport from coast to coast easier and faster.)3. The railroad system expanded4. 2 world wars were fought.5. Educational attainment increased, leading to more kids staying in school and actually graduating from high school.6. Education became mandatory--more schools were built.7. The Great Depression necessitated governement action8. Aviation, airports and federal controls.9. The space race.10. The cold war.11. The medical/pharmaceutical industry.

The train was already running in the direction of greater spending. Perhaps it had more to do with the rise of modernity, the begining of shifting to an urban society and the inventions of the 20th century. But if anyone wants to continue to hold reactionary, simplistic views that blame all women (through granting them sufferage) and write about them, they may do so. And their right to express these views is guaranteed by that same oversized government.

I'll go you one better. The original yankees were socialists. They enacted a system where all the farm products would be collected and divided up among the community. An early example of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". As one might expect, the result was a food shortage and near starvation. It was the enactment of private property that saved them.

If your point is that yankees are big government fanatics, then you'll get no argument from me. It is a part of their East Anglian culture that manifested itself in a number of horrible ways, including the early Pilgrim days and the 19th century. And it persists to this day.

For more on early American social history, see David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed.

This of couse, takes alot of money and people to maintain and enforce.

Nonsense. Prior to the Civil War, the south was at least as wealthy as the north. And Switzerland today is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, yet it has a much smaller government than most other Western nations. The propensity toward big government is a cultural (and perhaps even ethnic) thing, it is not based on per capita wealth.

That one ethnic group is more totalitarian than another, however, does not change anything about the issue at hand, which is that women generally prefer big government more than men.

1. Population increased2. The automobile was invented and highways were built and maintained (The interstate system was to make troop transport from coast to coast easier and faster.)3. The railroad system expanded4. 2 world wars were fought.5. Educational attainment increased, leading to more kids staying in school and actually graduating from high school.6. Education became mandatory--more schools were built.7. The Great Depression necessitated governement action8. Aviation, airports and federal controls.9. The space race.10. The cold war.11. The medical/pharmaceutical industry.

You realize that most of that happened after women began voting, right?

Isn't that special, Triton? I said that it was a 20th century thing. So you're going to blame women's sufferage for EVERYTHING? That is illogical.

What man wasn't going to vote to fund fixing the "nation's sick highways" for troop transport? Just look up "Transcontinental Motor Convoy" on the internet. Go Eisenhower, go Auto industry you have found yourselves a scapegoat for every last overspent dollar and every baby killed in an abortion. WOMEN AND THEIR SUFFERAGE! Never mind the fact that a few states granted women sufferage to show greater population so that they could get statehood or anything convenient like that. How covenient to ingnore all the other faoctors of a changing economy and blame women and their sufferage!!

I have to agree with Savvy here. You're really starting to sound perversely obdurate. Savvy lists a complex group of causes for the growth of Govt., many of which have their roots in the technological advancements of modernity and which grow out of Enlightenment rationalism, and the only thing you can find to say is "You realize that most of that happened after women began voting, right?" as if somehow that constituted an actual counterargument. This is what I meant when I said that your views grossly oversimplify a complex historical process.

Also, you haven't answered my question about who gets to decide who has the "privilege" of voting. Is it you? Only those who agree with views like your? Who?

Lastly, I've noticed you keep contrasting libertarian views like your own to socialism, as if those were the only two possible alternatives. I hope you realize that the majority of theologically orthodox, politically conservative, Bible believing Christians probably don't adhere to views like yours. I, too, am a Christian who looks to "The Lord and his Bible," as you put it, for my views of personhood and other things. I simply find your views tendentious and uncompelling.

No, I'm not. But I will name it as a significant factor in the growth of government, and maybe the most significant factor.

What man wasn't going to vote to fund fixing the "nation's sick highways" for troop transport?

Men like me.

Go Eisenhower, go Auto industry you have found yourselves a scapegoat for every last overspent dollar and every baby killed in an abortion. WOMEN AND THEIR SUFFERAGE!

I hardly think it's a stretch to blame women for abortion.

Also, you haven't answered my question about who gets to decide who has the "privilege" of voting. Is it you? Only those who agree with views like your? Who?

What if I said no one should vote, including men? Is that something y'all would be willing to consider? Or does your idolatrous worship of the voting booth prevent it? Seriously, I'd like to know.

To answer the question, only one person should vote about any specific issue involving property, and that is the property owner.

And I still haven't received an answer to my earlier question from anyone. If universal suffrage is such a grand idea, why don't we actually apply it to everybody and every situation? Why don't we let toddlers vote? Why don't we let felons vote? Why don't we let citizens of foreign countries vote? Why don't we have national referendums on every issue instead of only letting a handful of Congress critters vote on them?

I hope you realize that the majority of theologically orthodox, politically conservative, Bible believing Christians probably don't adhere to views like yours.

I'm aware of that. Just as I'm sure you're aware that most Christians don't really know that much about their own religion at all.

Savvy lists a complex group of causes for the growth of Govt., many of which have their roots in the technological advancements of modernity and which grow out of Enlightenment rationalism, and the only thing you can find to say is "You realize that most of that happened after women began voting, right?" as if somehow that constituted an actual counterargument.

That's hardly the only thing I've said, and you know it. How about this:

One concern with Figure 2 is that many states made thedecision to let women vote around World War I and that the war,rather than suffrage, may have prompted higher governmentexpenditures.22 Since the war ended in November 1918 and the19th Amendment was ratified in August 1920, examining just thenineteen states that extended suffrage as a result of the Amendmentallows us to see whether state governments started expanding due tothe war and not suffrage. As shown in Table 1, this group of statesincluded states from across the nation—most of which were notmembers of the old Confederacy (e.g., Connecticut, Delaware,Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey,New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West Virginia). Figure 3provides equally dramatic evidence that state governments did notstart expanding as a result of either the beginning or end of the war,but only once women were given the right to vote. Unfortunately,only one state had expenditure data and no states had revenue datafor 1920, so the values shown in the figure for 1920 are essentiallythe average change from 1919 to 1921. While we are not able topinpoint exactly when state government spending and revenueincreased, state government expenditures continued to decline for aleast one year after the war was over, which suggests that thesubsequent increases were not due to the war.World War I appears to have had little noticeable impact onstate governments, as the slight downward trend in state per capitaspending and revenue that started in 1913 continues through 1919and is remarkably similar to the pre-suffrage pattern observed in thefull sample. If anything, the slightly greater explosion in governmentspending shown in Figure 3 may explain part of the reason whythese states were the most reluctant to extend suffrage.

Lott concludes that women's suffrage was the significant factor concerning state expenditures rather than WWI, SavvyD's protestations notwithstanding. Which you would have known if you'd bothered to read the link I'd provided.

And, for the record, I've never said women's suffrage is the only factor at play here, only the most significant one.

I view my politically assured right to vote as a blessing from God and an obligation as a citizen. It is hardly an idolatrous worship. Perhaps I should accuse you of an idolatrous worship of your personal freedom, but then, that would probably be uncharitable and an underhanded way to argue.

"I'm aware of that. Just as I'm sure you're aware that most Christians don't really know that much about their own religion at all."

Yes. I'm speaking, however, of the ones who do know and I still don't think most of them would find your views compelling.

"And I still haven't received an answer to my earlier question from anyone. If universal suffrage is such a grand idea, why don't we actually apply it to everybody and every situation? Why don't we let toddlers vote? Why don't we let felons vote? Why don't we let citizens of foreign countries vote? Why don't we have national referendums on every issue instead of only letting a handful of Congress critters vote on them?"

We don't let children vote for the same reasons we don't let them do many things, because they are children and are not deemed capable of adult responsibilities, among which voting is included.

As for felons, they are generally considered to have forfeited their right to vote by engaging in criminal activity of a felonious kind.

AS for foreign citizens, most people who believe in democratic govt. support the notion that foreigners should have the right to vote in their own country. This is why most Americans support the spread of democracy around the world.

As for congress, the last time I checked, the members of congress were elected by the votes of the people to represent them, so I hardly think it constitutes a contradiction in principal for congress to vote in place of the people.

The issue we are discussing here is whether women who are mature adult citizens, who have committed no felonious crime, should have the right to vote.

Triton--BS!! You soooooo would have gone for being able drive your car from coast to coast in 4 days that it takes today--3 if you drive with someone and take shifts as opposed to the 4+ MONTHS it took?

What? Are you from deepest darkest Georgia and never did anything but walk 3 miles to work on your own Dodge feet??

You didn't ASK any question because you have all the answers and women clearly flock to you because you're so incredibly smooth and sexy.

you may THINK you ask questions, but they aren't real questions, just dumb annoying questions that I would beat you up for if I were your sister.

I'm not idolatrously worshipping the voting booth. I will not agree with moronic claptrap that women's sufferage is responsible when there were also complex societal factors involved. Why don't we find a country just like ours where women were not granted sufferage and see if the same applies. Do some REAL research Triton. Don't just sit there regurgitating something I read and didn't agree with.

I hope you realize that the majority of theologically orthodox, politically conservative, Bible believing Christians probably don't adhere to views like yours.

And probably not my views either. Quite frankly, I find many fellow Christians to be grossly inconsistent in their understanding regarding faith as it intersects with politics. I think the Baptist professor Laurence Vance has written a goodly number of thought-provoking pieces about them.

I view my politically assured right to vote as a blessing from God and an obligation as a citizen. It is hardly an idolatrous worship. Perhaps I should accuse you of an idolatrous worship of your personal freedom, but then, that would probably be uncharitable and an underhanded way to argue.

Actually, you could make such a case if freedom were never mentioned in the Bible as something God desires for men. That's not the case, though. It IS the case that universal suffrage and democracy are never endorsed by God in any fashion.

The Lord's initial plan was for a sort of theocracy; the Israelites weren't satisfied and demanded a monarchy, which the Lord gave them. At no time did the Lord institute democracy or universal suffrage.

We don't let children vote for the same reasons we don't let them do many things, because they are children and are not deemed capable of adult responsibilities, among which voting is included.

As for felons, they are generally considered to have forfeited their right to vote by engaging in criminal activity of a felonious kind.

AS for foreign citizens, most people who believe in democratic govt. support the notion that foreigners should have the right to vote in their own country. This is why most Americans support the spread of democracy around the world.

That's not what you said earlier. Let me remind you:

An argument showing how, in a liberal-democratic society and participatory democracy in which citizenship and full personhood is typically seen to include voting rights, one can legitimately deny women the right to vote without, in some way, at least by suggestion, diminishing their personhood.

Does disenfranchisement deny someone's personhood or not? If so, then aren't we denying the personhood of children, felons, and foreigners?

Or, if personhood is unrelated to voting, then is your point that some kinds of people simply shouldn't vote? If so, then why shouldn't we objectively reconsider suffrage for all groups of people based on the same criteria we use for children, felons, and foreigners?

As for congress, the last time I checked, the members of congress were elected by the votes of the people to represent them, so I hardly think it constitutes a contradiction in principal for congress to vote in place of the people.

And how accurately does Congressional action reflect the will of the people? Congress has never been tough on abortion, even though most Americans favour some restrictions on it. There are plenty of issues where Congress works against the will of the majority of the people. Is this really what the point of voting should be? When the results from Congress turn out so differently from what we would get in an absolute democracy, then yes, I do see a contradiction in principal.

The issue we are discussing here is whether women who are mature adult citizens, who have committed no felonious crime, should have the right to vote.

Actually, the issue was whether women's suffrage is a significant contributor to big government.

Triton--BS!! You soooooo would have gone for being able drive your car from coast to coast in 4 days that it takes today--3 if you drive with someone and take shifts as opposed to the 4+ MONTHS it took?

I have no intention of driving from coast to coast. In fact, I really don't like driving at all. Furthermore, I think it is precisely the ease of travel that is creating situations where people rarely see their extended family members anymore. Once upon a time, one could rely on some support from one's extended family because they lived nearby; that is rarely the case anymore due to distance. I think this is a bad thing, and I think the ease of travel is the culprit. It's simply too easy for folks to move far away from those they would otherwise depend on.

If I could snap my fingers and un-invent the interstate system, I would do so in a heartbeat.

You didn't ASK any question because you have all the answers and women clearly flock to you because you're so incredibly smooth and sexy.

Classy as ever, SavvyD.

You're wrong, though; I don't have all the answers, nor do women flock to me. I'm just trying to do the best I can in the world I have to live in, and that includes trying to diagnose what is wrong with that world. Oppressive governments may not bother you, but they bother me, and if universal suffrage contributes significantly to the growth of government power, then I think it should be reconsidered.

I'm not idolatrously worshipping the voting booth. I will not agree with moronic claptrap that women's sufferage is responsible when there were also complex societal factors involved.

Why don't we find a country just like ours where women were not granted sufferage and see if the same applies. Do some REAL research Triton. Don't just sit there regurgitating something I read and didn't agree with.

Women's suffrage is a relatively recent thing, so it should be quite easy to find some countries for comparison. Switzerland comes to mind; they didn't grant women the vote until 1971, so women have had less time to affect policy there than they have here. Now see if you can guess which country has the bigger government.

Of course, Switzerland isn't exactly like the U.S., but it's about as close as we can reasonably come, it being a federal republic and all.

On a final note, I submit that colonial America, where no one voted, was far freer than modern America. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner; a wrong does not become right just because the majority happens to think so. I would hope that Anakin's readers would not only reconsider women's suffrage, but voting in general, particularly as they pertain to individual liberty.

Your opinions are not rational or well founded. You have a couple of papers, but have not proven it by even a preponderance of the evidence. I want to see how other countries actually stack up side by side. I want to see thee numners. I want to see the evidence. I want to know the men's voting patterns too. I want to know that men had no role in the inventions that drove the needed finances for these "advancements." I want to know that the direction society was headed REALLY had no influence--not just world war one.

I want to know that you aren't locking yourself in a cabin unabomber style cause you honestly sound a little weird, insufferable, and a rather disagreeable curmudgeon.

You want to blame women for abortion, but there are many cases where a man talked a woman into getting one. I didn't go on a second date with that guy. Men were doctors and performed the abortions--even before Roe V Wade. I want to see the voting patterns on that one--oh wait, there aren't because Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision from a Supreme Court that was comprised of male justices appointed by male politicians--oh sure that women voted for, but blaming women's sufferage for this 1973 supreme court decision is very convoluted.

You want to blame women for abortion, but there are many cases where a man talked a woman into getting one. I didn't go on a second date with that guy. Men were doctors and performed the abortions--even before Roe V Wade.

You've got to be kidding. American women choose to have abortions; this isn't China where the government forces that choice upon them.

If I buy a lemon from a used car salesman, I blame myself for being foolish. I don't blame the salesman for persuading me to buy the car. This is called "taking responsibility for one's actions".

And if women are so easily manipulated as you claim, and will kill their children after a little persuasion, then should they really be voting? You're making the case against women's suffrage better than I ever could.

there are lemon laws that protect people against unscrupulous sales people in used car transactions, so the law in that case would not agree with you. If a salesperson knowingly sells you a lemon--whether it's a house or a car with damage or problems, they are actually commiting a crime.

Wow. For all his talk about "marriage strike", Triton sure has an airtight strategy for getting women to talk to him on the internet! Here's how it goes:

Express an opinion that women are bound to hate. It doesn't matter how outrageous it is, actually, the more outrageous, the better. Like suggesting women shouldn't have the vote -- that oughta get them going!

You ladies are being played. It's the old negative attention seeking strategy of schoolyard fame. Get the girls all riled up, and not only have you got their attention and their time, but you get the amusement of seeing them all "upset". It works everytime, that is, until the girls learn to ignore the guys that play this game.

When it comes to abortion, both men and women are to blame--not just one or the other. Roe v. Wade was, again a Supreme Court decision--male justices appointed by a male politician.

You can keep repeating that all you want, but the fact remains that the decision to kill a child is entirely the mother's.

If a salesperson knowingly sells you a lemon--whether it's a house or a car with damage or problems, they are actually commiting a crime.

You're talking about fraud; I'm talking about both parties knowing what's up, and the buyer being convinced to buy something he didn't want a few minutes ago.

There be foolish people in the world that are swayed to do all manner of things. Not just wimmin, but menfolk too.

You don't say.

Go back to my very first comment on this thread:

Personally, I think voting should be severely restricted, or even eliminated altogether.

"Eliminated altogether" means men don't vote either.

Wow. For all his talk about "marriage strike", Triton sure has an airtight strategy for getting women to talk to him on the internet!

I can only assure you that is not my intent. As proof, this will be my last comment on this thread.

One final note, though: I have said that I would be willing to give up my vote in exchange for a free society. Can anyone else say the same? Or would you be satisfied to be slaves so long as you could vote for your taskmasters?

These are rhetorical questions, so y'all need not answer. It's just something to think about.

Again, if women are the murderers, men are the accomplices. Not always, but in lots of cases. Think about this. Many a man has driven a woman to the clinic and given her flowers after. Many a man has given the woman money for the abortion. Men actually perform the abortions (some women also). If women did the deed, the man guided her hand on the trigger. Do you think some men would rather use some form of coercion to convince a girl to abort rather than raise the child or pay child support. You betcha.

Dictionary: accomplice n.An associate in wrongdoing, especially one who aids or abets another in a criminal act, either as a principal or an accessory.

If giving up your privilege to vote meant greater liberty in our society, would you stand in favor of that sacrifice?

Some of the liberties Triton listed were ones that I didn't particularly give a rip about--such as using cocaine, pot, etc. Now I'm really sorry that you don't agree, but we may have very different ideas of freedom. For example, when I go to a restaurant, I'm glad to be free from smoke most of the time. Yet, I've been to a few bars to see bands that invited me where people smoke anyway--I don't stay long. but others might mine mourn the loss of the the freedom to smoke. Whatever. If there is even one bar that has smoking, that's evidence that the free market is free enough, and enforcement is just lax enough. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. It's just a matter of importance placed on said freedoms.

But think about it - in who(m?) do we have the most liberty? God through Christ.

How many votes do you think God had in his favor to be the ruler of the universe? Somehow I doubt it was unanimous - and I'm fairly certain he didn't have a majority ruling, either. And yet the most freedom is found in him if you choose to follow his lead.

Strange...dontcha think? That the one place that the most freedom is found was from someone who defines his power without votes?

Now of course, we live in a world of corruption. Absolute power breeds absolute evil in the hearts of men. Which is why the democratic society uses votes and other political branches as checks and balances.

Thing is, we the people don't always have a stake in whats being voted on and the vast majority will vote willy nilly without much thought. Or something someone says triggers a response and they'll vote without doing much research. But the ones that have the most to lose will dig in deep and hold the one they vote into power accountable.

Without some kind of CHECKS on the people, you end up with the mob ruling the nation. We don't want that any more than we want a moron in office.

We the People need boundaries just as much as the people in office need boundaries. But We the People no longer have any boundaries - so now the mob rules; popular opinion carries more weight in a politician's decision making process because that's what gets him the votes.

As for the question, if going without a vote gaurantees more freedom, then I'm all for it. I've already done so. I did not need to vote God into power and he gives me all the freedom I need - no matter what direction this country goes in.

Christina--I did answer the question. The all important "freedoms" that we "lost" were posted by Triton somewhere in this mess of comments. They were actually listed in the above comment I left. It depends on the "freedoms" we are discussing.

And I still think many things would be in a similar state had women not been granted sufferage.

In any case, the questions is moot. It's not going to happen. It's like that old counseling question I was asked at 12, "If you were queen of the world, what would you change?" I said it was a dumb question.

Savvy- Sorry I'm late to answer the comment you made about the Susan B. Anthony quote I noted earlier (my hands have been out of comission so typing is currently challenging). It seems to me if I said to you "Savvy can have 500 bucks and no more and Learner can have 500 bucks and no less" that the inequity in the statement may become more apparent.

Resorting to personal attacks in a discussion or debate is not only rude,it is a sign of someone who has nothing more meaningful to share. In short it only makes you look bad.

In any case, the questions is moot. It's not going to happen. It's like that old counseling question I was asked at 12, "If you were queen of the world, what would you change?" I said it was a dumb question.

You're probably right that it'll never happen; that said, I don't believe the question is dumb, because one's answer to it demonstrates one's priority: greater freedom, or retaining voting itself.

Respectfully, you ducked the question by countering with another question: which freedoms are we discussing? The problem is that my version of the question was general, requiring only a general answer in kind.

It seems to me that you didn't address it head-on for one of two possible reasons: either you didn't want to answer, or you misunderstood the question.

Learner--it isn't about exact money, it's about rights which are not neccessarily quantifiable, but have theoretical value.

Personally, Farmer Tom, I think you are in agreement before the fact, so that makes other opinions unsavory to you. Triton's views are way off the beaten track and reactionary. I just do not agree and there is not adequate evidence to PROVE, though it's adequate for an opinion paper. Social and political science is theoretical in large part, as there is no experiment that can be repeated. That results in the use of supported conjecture and supposition for a possible/plausible theory--the definition of possible includes that it is something that may or may not be true. Plausible means it sounds true, but isn't. My vote is plausible, others vote possible and some of you have turned theory into definite. I cannot make that leap without a preponderance of the evidence--something which we do not have.

And Learner--some of the way I wrote that stuff was supposed to make it more amusing--sure I'm sad that my family is so far apart, and a large amount on the other side of the atlantic--but the idea that he has never benefitted from some of the alleged atrocities of big government or alleged tragic loss of unimportant freedoms that he linked to. It seems to me that these views work best in relatively isolated rural areas, as I can assure you, most urban people do not espouse them--at least not in the ones I've encountered. To me the views we have been discussing were, until now, unheard of. And also, to me, these are fringe, boutique/specialty variety ideas. I also was very amused by the idea of someone--anyone--standing on a street corner agitating to repeal women's sufferage. I also haven't appreciated women recieving the full blame for abortion when it is murder with a string of accomplices that aid and abet the act.

And yes, I'm quite literate, so I haven't appreciated being accused of NOT reading a document that was nauseatingly boring, complete with a few misspellings and appalling in its suppositions. I even printed it out so I could read it better and became quite annoyed with my printer running out of ink and that they made it so difficult to print it out with 2 to a page without the print practically disappearing.

Bit I digress. On with the show! I added a few sticks and some kindling to our bonfire of comments. Bring out the marshmallows. Let's have s'mores while we chat.

It is indeed a question of which rights. I cannot find the link because we have posted so much, but Triton provided a link to the freedoms we have lost since granting women sufferage. Some of the freedoms that we lost were and are things that do not matter to me.

Yes, Savvy, I am aware it is not about exact money. I chose that as a concrete example in which it was what you received or experienced that had a limitation placed on it. We could substitute any variety of other commodities or values in the sentence. The issue is that one side has a maximum limitation placed on it and the other side not only has no maximum limitation placed on it, it also has a guaranteed minimum.

My comment about personal attacks was not aimed specifically at you. However, I admit to not finding comparing someone to a shoeless hick, the Unabomber, or mocking their attractiveness to be funny or productive. But as I have said to you before, if that is how you want to roll, that is your choice. Just don’t be surprised at the reactions you get.

"I read the entire thread, and one thing is very clear, Triton made an excellent case, and the response to that case was mostly personal insults, sarcastic or snide comments and a frequent childish, huh uh,

Clearly this is a discussion between someone capable of rational thought and an emotional child who spews the pablum learned in the local grade school."

Please. Spare me. The notion that Triton's responses and arguments have been some paradigm of rational argumentation is ridiculous. While his arguments haven't been totally horrible, they haven't been particularly superb either. Nor has it been the case that Savvy's or my own arguments have been childish, emotional pablum either. To claim so is simply to see what you want to see rather than what's actually there. In fact, I think that Savvy has been remarkably patient and well spoken throughout this whole thread and has held her own quite well. I'm certainly aware that my own arguments aren't perfect either (after all, this is a blog and I'm writing on the fly under time constraints.) But to claim what you claim in the above comments is simply self-serving.

In any case, I've decided to drop it. I started responding to Triton's last response to me (and make no mistake I could have made a rational response to it) and then realized that it just doesn't matter that much. I'm busy and tired a lot lately and just don't want to engage in interminable debate on this matter. In any case, Triton has expressed his decision not to post on this thread any more and I'm leaving well enough alone too.

Lott was referring to the size of government as a percentage of the GNP. So your #1 is irrelevant. As the population increased so did the GNP, so the percentage would stay the same as the population grows, and there could even be downward pressure on it due to economies of scale.

#3 The railroads were nationalized during WWI but were returned to private after the war. This would not explain an increase in spending

#4 lists two world wars, but WWI was over when the increase started and as noted by Triton, Lott shows a decrease in state expenditures after WWI.

#s 7-11 came so far after (near)universal suffrage that they only cloud the debate.

This leaves #s 2, 5 & 6 as germane to the topic at hand.

#2 started (federally) in 1916 and had a bump in 1925-26. Not to say that it is insignificant, but not exactly a huge expenditure either.

#5&6 are a real issue. Funding of the schools has become a pretty significant expenditure (I dont have figures for spending at that time), and perhaps worse it has been used as social engineering from the very timeframe in question. See John Dewey. These same public schools became a tool to indoctrinate children into socialist thought which no doubt assisted in the later, even greater, rate of increase in state & federal expenditures.

I think the above tailors nicely with the already stated fact that women are more liberal (read socialist. Liberal used to mean what libertarian does today, but the word was co-opted by the socialists in the 50-60s) If children are given a more liberal thought base in schools it will move the whole discourse in later life to the left which makes larger government more acceptable than it otherwise would be, as evidenced by the difference in attitudes towards government from those who grew up in the century+_ prior to the socialist take-over of the school system in the early 1900's

I know of a Christian woman who recently became sole head of household because her husband dishonored their vows and had an affair. She has 4 children. Some may become sole heads of household through divorce that is not their own idea. Think before you punish all.

What role does the ability to cast a vote in an election have that enables her to provide for her children and live the life she wants? Nothing, unless she's a welfare recipient voting for an extremely left-wing candidate.

So, education, sanitation, hospitalization and road construction are bad things. I'm not saying our educational system is perfect, however, the other alternative is purposely not allowing people the opportunity to learn how to read--a return to slavery and serfdom.

Perhaps we are just in disagreement over what constitutes "big" government and what constitutes "freedom" and what constitutes playing a blame game that yet again points to one sex or the other as doing something "wrong."

As a teacher, more than once, I've wanted to relegate some children to making license plates if I had my druthers since they are wasting space and causing problems. It's the unfortunate side effect of mandatory education.

In any case, until I have the time to devote to researching the ACTUAL effect of women's sufferage in other countries and can look at all the other factors that I think are involved, I remain unconvinced.

And I injected some hyperbole into an otherwise dry, humorless and often insulting thread. I never said Triton was a "hick", I said his ideas work best in isolation--and while there are places that could be called "deepest, darkest, CA", Having lived in the South with it's dense forestation and kudzu-covered highway exchanges, it just sounded better.

If I might be a feminist for what I wrote, there is no doubt in my mind that some of y'all are chauvanists- SavvyD

For guys who love to beat their chests about "freedom", it's astounding how you all can just sit back when someone like Triton suggests that women shouldn't be able to vote.Someone

either that, or they've just cottoned onto another kind of "negative attention seeking", like little boys who say things to "upset" the girls, because they can't find any other way of engaging them.- Someone

If one of the "losses" of feminism is to be condemned as unfeminine by a bunch of blustering, gun-toting, conspiracy theory-obsessed bores who whinge non-stop about feminism and how tough it's made things for them, then actually, I'd consider that to be a "gain".- Someone

But if anyone wants to continue to hold reactionary, simplistic views that blame all women (through granting them sufferage) and write about them, they may do so.- SavvyD

Isn't that special, Triton? I said that it was a 20th century thing. So you're going to blame women's sufferage for EVERYTHING? That is illogical.- SavvyD

Perhaps I should accuse you of an idolatrous worship of your personal freedom, but then, that would probably be uncharitable and an underhanded way to argue.- Someone

You didn't ASK any question because you have all the answers and women clearly flock to you because you're so incredibly smooth and sexy.- SavvyD

you may THINK you ask questions, but they aren't real questions, just dumb annoying questions that I would beat you up for if I were your sister.- SavvyD

I will not agree with moronic claptrap that women's sufferage is responsible when there were also complex societal factors involved.- SavvyD

Do some REAL research Triton. Don't just sit there regurgitating something I read and didn't agree with.- SavvyD

I want to know that you aren't locking yourself in a cabin unabomber style cause you honestly sound a little weird, insufferable, and a rather disagreeable curmudgeon.- SavvyD

Wow. For all his talk about "marriage strike", Triton sure has an airtight strategy for getting women to talk to him on the internet!- Anonymous

Triton's bizarre rants hardly deserve "a detailed rebuttal", even if there are some grains of truth in there somewhere.- Anonymous

Triton's views are way off the beaten track and reactionary- SavvyD

The notion that Triton's responses and arguments have been some paradigm of rational argumentation is ridiculous. - Someone

That's only the completely disrespectful responses. There were definitly enough of other ones where the responses lacked any form of logical argument.

Savvy, for someone who so values the Scientific Method and will only accept that as proof of Triton's argument and dismissing Social and Political science as hogwash, you are incredibly good at dismissing the Scientific Method when it comes to your own debate style.

Engage as you wish to be engaged.

I will have to say though, Savvy, you did hold your own for quite a while there - then half way down you did resort to some really horrible means of discussion. Your arguments were still a bit out of focus and flawed, but you did well - until you stopped engaging Triton's arguments (even though he did address all your points), instead resorting to the blogosphere's version of stamping feet and insisting that you are right and he is wrong.

That's when things went downhill.

And you still haven't answered Triton's question - what is more important to you? The right to vote or freedom?

"For guys who love to beat their chests about "freedom", it's astounding how you all can just sit back when someone like Triton suggests that women shouldn't be able to vote.Someone

either that, or they've just cottoned onto another kind of "negative attention seeking", like little boys who say things to "upset" the girls, because they can't find any other way of engaging them.- Someone

If one of the "losses" of feminism is to be condemned as unfeminine by a bunch of blustering, gun-toting, conspiracy theory-obsessed bores who whinge non-stop about feminism and how tough it's made things for them, then actually, I'd consider that to be a "gain".- Someone"

Christina,

These three quotes whihc you attribute to me were in fact, never made by me but by an anonymous commenter. Please get your facts straight.

As for my other two quotes, I confess they were edgy, but completely disrespectfully? I respectfully disagree.

I do think it is literally ridiculous to claim that Triton's responses have been the exemplar of a rational mind over against what I or Savvy have written.

As for my other quote about idolatorus worship of freedom, I was simply responding in kind to Triton's suggestion that my belief in voting was idolatrous. I was trying to make a point about the way Triton was arguing. If my response can be considered disrespectful, then why not Triton's original accusation.

Government grew in all Western states around the time that women got the right to vote. Can't blame it on immigrants because most of those immigrants left Europe for the United States. Can't blame it on minorities, either because most blacks didn't/couldn't vote back then.

That pretty much leaves you with analyzing the voting patterns of whites. Whites in general, voted for big government for the first 50 years of the 20th century. Then, as classical liberalism returned to prominence, white men tend to start to vote for less government again, while white women, tend to vote for candidates that support more government.

If you find this hard to believe, then just look at the behavior of conservative women. While conservative men tend to also favor limited government in many areas, conservative women don't. They're more than happy to boss you around in the name of morals, decency, God, family, stray kittens and puppies, etc., but they don't tend to support the limited government angle of conservatism nearly as much as men do. Then there's the gender imbalance among libertarians which is itself a whole separate issue.

Hogwash? Didn't say that either. I have never washed a hog. Was what I said about social science not logical? But I did say hyperbole and I did say something about making s'mores over our bonfire. Then I got what Amir called a "smackdown" only I thought mine was funnier when I did it to Triton who then ADMITTED he actually WOULD uninvent the Interstate system. How is that not reactionary?

I called Lott's paper moronic claptrap. He accused me of not reading. Come on, Christina.

I didn't know we were "debating" I thought we were discussing or leaving comments. Some of the stuff you point out as me "insulting" actually isn't. It is illogical to claim that women are responsible for everything. I stand by that comment. Insulting would be calling someone an idiot. Semantics.

Just answer the question--When I looked at Triton's list recopied from Vox Popoli, they were not freedoms that were important to me. SO AGAIN, I want to know what alleged freedoms am I exchanging. Full disclosure is all I ask in reasonable discourse.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/05/freedom-more-or-less.html

Please explain to me how these views are not reactionary or suddenly without logic or reason as times changes just because of women's sufferage.

I'm not trying to defend Savvy, as you guys have made very good points as to the ramifications of suffrage.

For the record: even as a guy, I would give up my own vote if it meant more freedom.

On the other hand, the larger issue is whether your case regarding the legacy of suffrage--which is substantial--proves that the rollback of women's suffrage will result in more freedom.

Personally, I don't see that happening, because--unfortunately--a hell of a lot of men love their big government handouts, and as the demographic face of America gets older, the AARP will carry the torch for more socialism.

I was in a hurry cuz I was at work and was trying to be thorough but not double checking. My apologies.

I was also thinking about going through the men's posts, but even if I did, I wouldn't come up with nearly so many.

And yes, both yours and Savvy's posts reeked of disrespect. Even when your arguments were right on.

And Savvy, the question doesn't require specific freedoms being listed. Think of a freedom that you think is particularly important to you. Lets say you were imprisoned by some psychopathic moran who was going to cut you into pieces and offered you freedom in exchange for your vote.

Just ANYTHING that would be more important to you than voting. Or is there absolutely nothing? How much do you value your vote?

Thank you for acknowledging your mistake. I am willing to concede that my response to Farmer Tom, calling what he said ridiculous was disrespectful. I shouldn't even have tried to defend it. I do think that Farmer Tom's comments were unfair and inaccurate, and possibly reflect a kind of cronyism, but that was no reason for me to respond direspectfully.

I still stand by my idolatry question to Triton, however, as I was simply trying to make a point about the nature of his response to me, accusing me of idolatry. I felt it was an underhanded way for him to argue and still do, and I was trying to make the point that we could both make those sorts of accusations but that they really don't advance the discussion at all. I still believe that and don't see anything essentially wrong with what I said.

I toast to Amir's comment! That's the perfect answer. My yes or no is neither here nor there. Remember, I told a counselor she was asking a dumb question when I was a mere 12. To me, it is a moot point. (2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.)

But I have often gone along with the wishes of the group rather than my own desires for the good of the whole. It's only practical and respectful to do so.

I don't agree that I was being disrespectful. I was being disrepected. I used hyperbole, apt description and was semantically correct. Did this sound like epithets to you?

Please explain to me how these are not fringe ideas that work best in isolation because if I were friends with someone who espoused these ideas, we would cease to be friends very quickly. And if he lived in New York City, the liberals would certainly hate him at the very least. A reasonable woman finds these views offensive--at least in my opinion. My more conservative friends and I learned how to keep our mouths shut and even alone, we spoke haltingly in hushed tones fearul that someone might argue with us. Finally someone said out loud, "I think we're all safe here." Then the conversation flowed.

I don't want to take the time to assemble all of Triton's insults directed at me, or the many ways in which my comments were misread but I will if I have to.

Isn't that special, Triton? I said that it was a 20th century thing. So you're going to blame women's sufferage for EVERYTHING? That is illogical.--SavvyD

It IS, indeed illogical. If I were to call someone an idiot or a moron, then this would be an insult. It is not.

Savvy, for someone who so values the Scientific Method and will only accept that as proof of Triton's argument and dismissing Social and Political science as hogwash, you are incredibly good at dismissing the Scientific Method when it comes to your own debate style.--Christina

Triton's use of the scientific method for debate was never the issue. It was LOTT'S use of scientific method and its application to social science which is the issue. (The study of how groups of people behave, often in an effort to predict how they will behave in the future.) Please explain to me how it is an ACTUAL science. This was not an insult--except perhaps to social science. scientific method –noun a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

Empirical--provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

I will not agree with moronic claptrap that women's sufferage is responsible when there were also complex societal factors involved.- SavvyDI stand by what I said. How was this an insult? I think that was an apt desciption.

Do some REAL research Triton. Don't just sit there regurgitating something I read and didn't agree with.- SavvyDNot an insult. The text of that article I was referring was just copied and was a review of Lott's work, not new findings that supported his findings, hence the call for real research. Triton has also just accused me of not reading.

I want to know that you aren't locking yourself in a cabin unabomber style cause you honestly sound a little weird, insufferable, and a rather disagreeable curmudgeon.- SavvyD

That was indeed, exceedingly well-written hyperbole. I should have directed it at his views, not his person. But he left some comment on Elusive Wapiti celebrating his marriage stike and calling others to do so. The first half is hyperbole, the last half is definitely an insult.

This is not an insult, it is an observation. way off the beaten track--yes, yes these views are in the broad scope of beliefs about sufferage.

But if anyone wants to continue to hold reactionary, simplistic views that blame all women (through granting them sufferage) and write about them, they may do so. And their right to express these views is guaranteed by that same oversized government.

This points to the views not the person. The last sentence is also very important. This is not an insult.

Lets say you were imprisoned by some psychopathic moran who was going to cut you into pieces and offered you freedom in exchange for your vote.--Christina

Umm. That didn't help me. That's not the kind of freedom we were discussing. Did you click the link? I'm going to look into some of those things. If you want to call it ducking, that's fine. But to me it's still a moot point.

I should have known better than to bite on that one. How naïve of me to think that you would answer my request Savvy. Perhaps your lack of response is because about the closest Triton came to insulting you in this discussion was to call your opinion naïve. It is curious to me that in a thread where Anakin relates the response a feminist made on her blog to one of his posts, and then responds to her points in a reasonable manner, that you choose to use engage in the discussion in the manner that you have. But, I see that you do not seem to be willing to consider that, so I will leave you to it.

Amir--My point has been that abortion is not just a feminist issue. For you, it is just a yes or no answer. For me it is not. I have been saying that we have a shared societal responsibility. But it culd be just a personality issue a la Meyers Briggs type indicator--judging vs perceiving.

I think easier abortions became possible with surgical advancements that were applied to that area also.

So for you, if it WERE a simple yes/no, I would agree with you and say no.

Savvy: It is a simple yes/no. The abortion holocaust is a direct consequence of feminism. In this case, the feminists (women in particular) pioneered the cause, and men jumped on board later in the game.

(The Steinem mantra--"you'll screw more and enjoy it more"--drew a lot of men in, as well as the marketing for "women's rights". Those efforts, too, were the work of the feminists.)

That contrasts with the sexual revolution, in which men (in particular Alfred Kinsey) were the pioneers and the feminists jumped on board later in the game.

In the former case, the feminists are DIRECTLY to blame whereas in the latter, the feminist role was merely contributory.

Learner, it seems to me that you have taken offense where none was intended, like my not answering was a personal slight or something when in actuality I was out all day from 7 am until 11:30pm. I jumped online to check the location of an event. I found the message I received to be puposely hurtful and disrespectful to me.

However, it is not the first time offense was taken where none was intended in my previous post that were not insults but proper word and accurate word use. I confesed which ones were insults.

Triton-Complaining about "class" in America is a pretty naive thing to do,1. I wasn’t “complaining” but that is a way of dismissing a statement.2. My comment was dismissed as naïve.

Anon-It is downright silly to claim men controlled government during economic downturns; thus men are responsible.- So my comment was downright silly? No, I was pointing out that women’s sufferage wasn’t the sole culprit.

Amir-Savvy: Can you not read?-Why yes, yes I can. This is a way of saying I am illiterate. Very complimentary.

Christina-Savvy, your definition of Feminism is lacking.You might as well have said my reason is lacking. Wouldn’t it have been polite to say that “the definition of feminism we are working with is X…”?

Savvy-This of couse, takes alot of money and people to maintain and enforce.Triton-Nonsense.-Nice. So I wrote nonsense.

Triton-Lott concludes that women's suffrage was the significant factor concerning state expenditures rather than WWI, SavvyD's protestations notwithstanding. Which you would have known if you'd bothered to read the link I'd provided.1. I read it.2. I did not agree with it.3. Call me a liar for not reading--or was that directed at Someone?

By the way, in calling his feet “Dodge feet” I was saying that he walks instead of drive a Dodge which is what you would have to do to avoid a publicly funded highway. It’s an expression in Mexico that doesn’t translate well.

Savvy-You didn't ASK any question because you have all the answers and women clearly flock to you because you're so incredibly smooth and sexy.Triton-Classy as ever, SavvyD.1. This was sarcastic, certainly on my part to indicate that the average woman would take offense and find this unattractive.2. His response was not above mine because he was indicating that I was lacking in class rather than saying he didn’t appreciate it.

Triton-You haven't even read what I provided. Why should I take the time to dig up more stuff you aren't going to read?This is a way of saying that I lied. I was read but remained unconvinced because social science is still not empirical--meaning that it cannot be proven.

Farmer Tom-I read the entire thread, and one thing is very clear, Triton made an excellent case, and the response to that case was mostly personal insults, sarcastic or snide comments and a frequent childish, huh uh, Clearly this is a discussion between someone capable of rational thought and an emotional child who spews the pablum learned in the local grade school. -How sweet. Can you see that was directed at me among others who did not agree?

Respectfully, you ducked the question by countering with another question: which freedoms are we discussing? The problem is that my version of the question was general, requiring only a general answer in kind. 1. So, I duck questions. I’m dodgy.2. I reposted a list of freedom from Vox Popoli and there were actually no indications that anyone but me looked at it because no one referred to it. (Except Triton who posted it the first place.)

Christina-"Childish rebuttals, and name calling" Exhibit:This produced a list, some of which were, as aforementioned accurate descriptions and not insults--particularly when they were directed at Lott’s work, the foundations of social “science” rather than at a person.

Christina--Savvy, for someone who so values the Scientific Method and will only accept that as proof of Triton's argument and dismissing Social and Political science as hogwash, you are incredibly good at dismissing the Scientific Method when it comes to your own debate style.

Engage as you wish to be engaged.

I will have to say though, Savvy, you did hold your own for quite a while there - then half way down you did resort to some really horrible means of discussion. Your arguments were still a bit out of focus and flawed, but you did well - until you stopped engaging Triton's arguments (even though he did address all your points), instead resorting to the blogosphere's version of stamping feet and insisting that you are right and he is wrong.1. This was a very sweet and kind portrayal of me.2. I explained the scientific method.3. Down with Savvy!

Learner-Christina- thanks for typing or cutting and pasting all that out... it makes the point much more powerfully than my few sentences.-Down with Savvy!!

Amir-Savvy: On the other hand, your refusal to answer Triton's question--or mine--says quite a bit about you. -Down with Savvy! What does it say about me? Is this a manner of insult? Why, yes, it may well be.

Learner-I should have known better than to bite on that one. How naïve of me to think that you would answer my request Savvy. Perhaps your lack of response is because about the closest Triton came to insulting you in this discussion was to call your opinion naïve. It is curious to me that in a thread where Anakin relates the response a feminist made on her blog to one of his posts, and then responds to her points in a reasonable manner, that you choose to use engage in the discussion in the manner that you have. But, I see that you do not seem to be willing to consider that, so I will leave you to it.-Um, so what I get out of this is that I’m purposely ducking, that someone only called me naïve and that gee, I must be deluded and *I* was the one doing the insulting when really I was at the beach then at my ex’s birthday party--clearly to avoid answering the question.

Now that I see it all stacked up, I am done with this thread and I hope *we* will all behave ourselves better on the next one.

No, Savvy, I was not offended at all. I was frustrated because I assumed your comment where you defend your comments that you believed to be misunderstood was intended as your answer to my request for you to “assemble all of Triton’s insults directed at you”. I don’t think that my assumption was unreasonable but I accept that I was mistaken and that you did not intend that as your response. I felt no personal slight about the timing of your response, since as I explained I thought you had answered (and even if I thought you hadn’t I’d hardly be personally slighted). Certainly I haven’t been the only person in this discussion frustrated with your tendency to not answer questions directly posed to you. I was frustrated that it appeared as if you chose to defend what you had said instead of assembling “all of Triton’s insults directed at you”. I was hoping that by challenging you to back up your assertion that Triton had insulted you (aside from calling you naïve) that you would realize that in fact he had been reasonable. I had hoped that realization would allow you to consider how your responses may have been perceived. If you felt that my challenging you was meant to be hurtful or disrespectful I can only say that was not my intention and that I am sorry if you felt that way. It is apparent that you have felt frustrated in this discussion, I was trying to help you think about it a little differently. I accept that you don’t welcome that and I won’t trouble you further with it.

What I see is that others are allowed hyperbole and I was not. My comments were misinterpreted quite often and I was talked down to more than anyone.

To you I'm being evasive, to me it is a different issue--one which I explained and which I think has a place in rational discourse. You don't accept my answer, and I don't accept your question. It's that simple.

To you I'm being evasive, to me it is a different issue--one which I explained and which I think has a place in rational discourse. You don't accept my answer, and I don't accept your question. It's that simple.

The problem, Savvy, is that you are insisting on defending something that is indefensible.

The feminist carries principal responsibility for the abortion slaughterfest. You have gone out of your way to mitigate the feminist role in this, and in so doing are undermining your credibility in the argument.

Any "gains" attributable to feminism must be weighed against the body count. It's a matter of economics: cost versus benefit.

The argument about suffrage is not a trivial one.

Even though rolling back suffrage is not something I support--we are in this democracy thing for better or worse--it is fair to question whether any perceived benefits that feminists may present in any future initiatives will result in other unintended consequences.

Well, that's what she calls herself, anyway. She has found my blog via this post. Of course, she couldn't let it go--she offered her own commentary on her LiveJournal space (which, like many feminist blogs, does not have a very open commenting policy).

Hold on a moment. Providing commentary on blog entries they find is what EVERYONE does. It's, erm, what you're doing right now. What's with the snide comment "of course she couldn't let it go"?

YOU apparently can't let it go either, because you're doing exactly what she did.

Anyway, what's wrong with it, why should you "tsk tsk" someone for commenting about it? Your statement implies that it suggests obsessiveness on her part. But again, you are doing PRECISELY the same thing. Of course, you couldn't let it go, either.

"The problem, Savvy, is that you are insisting on defending something that is indefensible....

The feminist carries principal responsibility for the abortion slaughterfest."

This is flawed logic. Savvy merely pointed out that there may some some aspects of feminism that are defensible (equal pay, etc.), but is does not follow that she must defend every cause ever fought by feminists (as if to support equal pay for equal work is to support abortion).

Although I don't agree with all her argumentation, she does deserve credit for pointing out that feminists are not entirely responsible for the proliferation of abortion, which clearly has its roots in LIBERTARIANISM, ergo, "right to privacy" on which Roe vs. Wade was based (even if many of today's libertarians don't necessarily support the R vs W decision).

Therefore, Savvy is right to ignore your moot question about whether the gains of feminism worth the losses of human life. Similar questions could be posed about libertarianism.

No health care: You're being dishonest. You mean no health insurance. Our system--faults and all--is the best in the world, and there is far better access to health care here than there is in Nanny State Canada.

Our cancer survival rates--the best in the world--are a testament to that.

Abortion: that is on the feminist, and I am not letting you get away with any attempted obfuscation.

Abortion is a consequence of Nanny State federal government imposing feminist dogma on us, as that agenda was sold to the Supreme Court by the feminists.

Libertarians are all over the map on abortion, but one thing they overwhelmingly support is getting the issue out of the federal government.

Can't say the same for the feminists, who have handed us the 50+million death toll.

To answer your question: with respect to the availability of health insurance, yes. I'll still take more libertarian anti-Statism.

In fact, I would support rolling back portions of the McCarren-Ferguson Act, open up the health insurance market nationally, make provisions for Medical IRAs (with no upper limit on contribution), and allow Medical IRA monies to be used liberally, including for health club memberships.

And on abortion, libertarian anti-Statism might make for a more equitable solution, as that would get the issue out of the Supreme Court and the federal government and into the hands of voters, legislators, governors, and state court systems.

It wouldn't make a perfect solution, but it would be worlds better than the morass we have now.

"Abortion: that is on the feminist, and I am not letting you get away with any attempted obfuscation....Abortion is a consequence of Nanny State federal government imposing feminist dogma on us, as that agenda was sold to the Supreme Court by the feminists."

And you think there'd be less abortion if it were handed over to the states, as per the so-called "libertarian" platform? Not much. This is just passing the buck on a difficult issue. If you are not wholeheartedly against abortion on all legal grounds, you are NOT pro-life.

"Libertarians are all over the map on abortion" Whatever. They are overwhelmingly pro-choice. Ron Paul is a vanity candidate, pandering to the Christian right, fooling only a few that what he's "pro-life" AND "pro-liberty".

And as for the Canadian health care system -- I'm Canadian, so don't even go there. Canadians are far healthier than their American cohorts and it has everything to do with the accessibility of our universal health care system.

And you think there'd be less abortion if it were handed over to the states, as per the so-called "libertarian" platform? Not much. This is just passing the buck on a difficult issue. If you are not wholeheartedly against abortion on all legal grounds, you are NOT pro-life.

Your last sentence is laughable, after all, with few exceptions--such as the killing of federal officials--WE ALLOW STATES to define and enforce codes against murder, manslaughter, and all degrees of homicide.

If we allow states to do this for murder, manslaughter, and other degrees of homicide, then on what grounds would you suggest that it is not pro-life to allow states to include abortion in that same bucket?

Are you suggesting that all degrees of murder, manslaughter, and homicide be enforced federally?

Whatever. [Libertarians] are overwhelmingly pro-choice. Ron Paul is a vanity candidate, pandering to the Christian right, fooling only a few that what he's "pro-life" AND "pro-liberty".

Ron Paul is not only pro-life; he has been the most consistent author of legislation that would render Roe v. Wade inoperable.

And as for the Canadian health care system -- I'm Canadian, so don't even go there. Canadians are far healthier than their American cohorts and it has everything to do with the accessibility of our universal health care system

Actually, health care access has nothing to do with it, as Americans have excellent access to health care.

If you need a diagnostic colonoscopy in Canada, you'll be on a 6-month wait. And--as I've said--cancer survival rates in America are the best in the world.

As for Canadians being healthier than Americans, you aren't even thinking critically enough, and are just parroting Michael Moore's talking points.

In fact, given that Michael Moore--being the millionaire that he is--has such access to health care, why is he so fat? Why is Rosie O'Donnell so fat? Why does Oprah Winfrey struggle with her weight? Kirstie Alley? Why did Marlon Brando die such a miserable death, mired in the hell of obesity?

It's about lifestyle choices.

Fact is, Americans have the unhealthiest lifestyles in the world. I happen to live in one of the most obese states in the union (Kentucky). And they live those lifestyles in spite of having access to the best health care in the world.

(I would also submit that part of the problem is that there is no insurance incentive for someone who is healthy to stay healthy, as the lardasses pay the same premium as I do.)

Do you honestly think that Kentuckians have no access to health care? They have great access to it. Trouble is, they also have great access--and preference--to McDonalds, Wendy's, Bob Evans, Cracker Barrel, Texas Roadhouse, Golden Corral, Ryan's Steakhouse...

One cannot discuss the health of Americans without accounting for chronic lardassity.

The last study I cited in my blog had the men at 33% and the women at 35%.

And even if you complain that the study uses BMI--which is not a good metric--that still does not account for the reality that, as a general rule, rising BMIs is an indicator of rising obesity.

Health care access does not cure obesity. That is, by and large, a lifestyle choice.

The First Law of Thermodynamics can be your best friend and your worst enemy.

"Your last sentence is laughable, after all, with few exceptions--such as the killing of federal officials--WE ALLOW STATES to define and enforce codes against murder, manslaughter, and all degrees of homicide...If we allow states to do this for murder, manslaughter, and other degrees of homicide, then on what grounds would you suggest that it is not pro-life to allow states to include abortion in that same bucket?...Are you suggesting that all degrees of murder, manslaughter, and homicide be enforced federally?"

More red herrings...we're not talking about "degrees". Homicide is a federal offense, as it is in all states. Don't waste my time.

"Ron Paul is not only pro-life; he has been the most consistent author of legislation that would render Roe v. Wade inoperable." Fine with me, but that's not in keeping with the libertarian anti-statist ethos because now there's a ruling in place that prevents the states from taking away freedoms and he wants to interfere with that -- most libertarians see through this, but hold their noses and support him anyways.

"Actually, health care access has nothing to do with it, as Americans have excellent access to health care"

If you have a job that pays for your sky-high health insurance. And if you don't you're probably going to put off those diagnostics. Our hospitals don't bill your plan for every Advil and cotton swab -- and at ridiculous cost. People in Canada don't go broke paying for their operations.

"If you need a diagnostic colonoscopy in Canada, you'll be on a 6-month wait. And--as I've said--cancer survival rates in America are the best in the world." Bullshit. This shows how little you know about Canada and our health care system. Six month wait for diagnostic colonscopy? That's for a SCREENING colonscopy! And as for American survival rates for cancer, I'm aware that rates vary in terms of race and region. I would expect that the most advanced medical care that can be found would be in the US, but as they say, you get what you pay for. I'm just glad that the medical insurance I get doesn't place any restrictions on what doctor I see -- that's a kind of freedom I can enjoy.

More red herrings...we're not talking about "degrees". Homicide is a federal offense, as it is in all states. Don't waste my time

Anonymous: You are the one who is wasting my time. With the exception of the murder of federal agents and federal employees, murder--and degrees of homicide--are left to state and local governments to enforce.

The only time the federal government gets involved in such cases is when a suspect flees to another state, in which the FBI gets involved in tracking the suspect down. At which time the suspect is returned to the state to be tried in state court on state charges.

As a Canadian, you might study a little more about law in the United States. You might learn something.

ine with me, but that's not in keeping with the libertarian anti-statist ethos because now there's a ruling in place that prevents the states from taking away freedoms and he wants to interfere with that -- most libertarians see through this, but hold their noses and support him anyways.

The pro-choice libertarians I know appreciate Ron Paul's approach. Why? Because his approach--even if it becomes law--results in a more equitable resolution that is anti-Statist.

How is it anti-Statist? It gives voters ownership of the issue. That allows voters to provide direction to legislators, governors, and even state judges--who do not serve life terms--as to (a) the extent to which they wish to protect life in utero, (b) what enforcement mechanisms to employ in enforcing the law, and (c) what degree to punish said crimes.

Voter ownership would be a major advancement in dealing with the issue, compared to what we have today. Our current framework ties the hands of voters, offering no opportunity for resolving the matter as long as Roe v. Wade is in effect.

If you have a job that pays for your sky-high health insurance. And if you don't you're probably going to put off those diagnostics. Our hospitals don't bill your plan for every Advil and cotton swab -- and at ridiculous cost. People in Canada don't go broke paying for their operations.

A lot of them get those operations here. I wonder why...

Bullshit. This shows how little you know about Canada and our health care system. Six month wait for diagnostic colonscopy? That's for a SCREENING colonscopy! And as for American survival rates for cancer, I'm aware that rates vary in terms of race and region. I would expect that the most advanced medical care that can be found would be in the US, but as they say, you get what you pay for. I'm just glad that the medical insurance I get doesn't place any restrictions on what doctor I see -- that's a kind of freedom I can enjoy.

Now you are trying to have it both ways.

What difference does it make if you are talking about a screening colonoscopy versus a diagnostic one?

If you have cancer and have to wait six months for the former, that's plenty of time for metastasis to set in.

Here in the States, people without insurance have access to basic health care that includes rudimentary screening.

Here in Kentucky, the annual cost for such services is comparable to getting a tune-up of your car. Most physicians in my area are willing to make payment arrangements for the uninsured.

Even for dental coverage, my dentist has a quasi-insurance arrangement wherein any patient--insured or not--can opt to pay a monthly fee and that entitles them to a set of reduced rates, as well as the two free cleanings per year. And the "premiums" are reasonable.

Moreover, here in Kentucky we have some of the finest health care in the world, especially in Louisville. When it comes to surgery, diagnostics, and cancer research, they are as good as anyone. I know some of the physicians who trained and practiced in those facilities. It is very common for them to take people who have no insurance.

Which brings me back to the fundamental point: having no insurance is not tantamount to having no access to health care.

And yes, when it comes to cancer survival, the prognosis is great in the U.S. compared to other countries including Canada.

Even for the uninsured.

Oh, and one more thing, the crux behind Romney's highly-touted MassCare (which requires everyone to purchase an insurance plan) was that--when the state studied the issue--they determined that the vast majority of the uninsured were uninsured by choice, and could otherwise afford the insurance.

That leads to a significant part of American life: our society was predisposed to leaving fiscal responsibility to the individual.

I would submit that many of our impending government spending crises (social security, Medicare) exist as a result of government trying to do for people what they ought to be doing for themselves.

Health care prices didn't start skyrocketing before government started getting their meathooks into the system.

"You are the one who is wasting my time. With the exception of the murder of federal agents and federal employees, murder--and degrees of homicide--are left to state and local governments to enforce"

I should just ignore this kind of game playing. But anyways...we're not talking about law enforcement, I'm talking about how laws like murder, a capital offense, get created in the first place. The degrees of homicide may be determined at the state level, but murder (I repeat) is a federal offence, as determined by the federal law (as it is in most western nations).

"As a Canadian, you might study a little more about law in the United States." Considering how notoriously uniformed Americans are about other countries (compared to vice versa), to that I say YOU FIRST.

"The pro-choice libertarians I know appreciate Ron Paul's approach. Why? Because his approach--even if it becomes law--results in a more equitable resolution that is anti-Statist...How is it anti-Statist?" Because it increases the likelihood that something that was once legal for all could then become illegal for many. I think the only thing pro-choice libertarians appreciate about Ron Paul is that he's the best you could hope for at this time, but he'll never get elected as president.

"A lot of them get those operations here. I wonder why..."

Because our government will pay for it, that's why! A country that's small in terms of population will have a have "feast or famine" as far as waitlists go, so sometimes it's more cost effective to fly someone out of province or out of country. Oh and as for looking across border, a lot of Americans do their shopping for meds through mail order businesses up here -- I wonder why??

"What difference does it make if you are talking about a screening colonoscopy versus a diagnostic one? If you have cancer and have to wait six months for the former, that's plenty of time for metastasis to set in."

To clarify, six months is the maximum recommended wait time for routine *screening*, according the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Practices, and I think it's rare that people wait that long. If it's a diagnostic colonoscopy, you'd get in a lot faster than that.

"Here in the States, people without insurance have access to basic health care that includes rudimentary screening...Most physicians in my area are willing to make payment arrangements for the uninsured." I'm not impressed.

"Oh, and one more thing, the crux behind Romney's highly-touted MassCare...they determined that the vast majority of the uninsured were uninsured by choice, and could otherwise afford the insurance." That's like asking the fox if the hen house door needs a latch on it.

"Health care prices didn't start skyrocketing before government started getting their meathooks into the system." Sure, if you elect officials on the sides of the insurance companies and the lawyers! That did not happen in Canada, where we actually spend less per capita on health care than the US.

"Which brings me back to the fundamental point: having no insurance is not tantamount to having no access to health care." I WAS referring to health insurance (ie. health care plan, or "health care", "care card", "medicare")

No. You said "no health care". As I said, not having health insurance is not the same as having no access to health care.

My dad--an Iranian immigrant--had no health insurance when I was born. I spent my first six months in a hospital. My dad worked out payment arrangements with the hospital.

No insurance, but plenty of access.

I said: ""A lot of them get those operations here. I wonder why..."

You said: Because our government will pay for it, that's why! A country that's small in terms of population will have a have "feast or famine" as far as waitlists go, so sometimes it's more cost effective to fly someone out of province or out of country.

Now you are ignoring the laws of economics.

(1) For one thing, you have a shortage of health care because of the price controls that your government has imposed. That creates waiting lists.

If the health care system were so great in Canada, the innovative cancer research would be performed there. The best physicians in the world would be flocking there. The best scientists in the world would be flocking there.

Instead, they come to the United States. I wonder why...

Where are the best pharmacologists? They are here in America.

Which brings me to your next point:

Oh and as for looking across border, a lot of Americans do their shopping for meds through mail order businesses up here -- I wonder why??

Again, you are ignoring the laws of economics.

Americans are paying higher prices for meds specifically because of the price controls your country imposes.

We end up paying the difference.

Pharmaceutical companies will sell to you at your prices because they have substantial "sunk costs" that they still have to recoup.

Selling at a loss in Canada is better than not selling at all, especially when you have a freer market in America where you can sort of recover the difference.

If that weren't the case, then why are the best pharmacologists in America? Why aren't they in that great health care mecca known as Canada?

That's not to say that Canada doesn't have its strengths. It's a lot like an HMO. If all I need are my regular checkups, Canada is fine. If I have any serious illnesses, or--heaven forbid--cancer, America is the place to be.

And if I need heart surgery right now, America is the place to be.

As for Canadians being healthier, again that comes down to lifestyle choices. The best health care access in the world cannot change what people choose for themselves.

America is #37. Canada is a little better than ours (coming in at #30). It rated on Availability, health, cost, and some other things that was lightly talked about here.

However, the stuff that I found also noted that the reason why American health care isn't the best is because the discrepancy between rich and poor is the GREATEST in the world out of all "rich" nations. Meaning, we have the greatest deviation between our richest and poorest people than any other rich nation.

I did some research and one of the reasons why France is SOOO good with its social care is because they've essentially outlawed immigration - its pretty stringent over there. Not so here. In fact, immigrants (legal and illegal alike) contribute the most to Canadian and US poverty. And I bet that's why Canada isn't the greatest, either.

If you want to argue for socialized healt chare, the democratic party needs to ditch their immigration platform. If they want immigration, they need to ditch the socialized health care platform. If they want either of those, they need to ditch the minimum wage platform.

Simply put, Anonymous for Socialized Health Care, it won't work here in america. It barely works for you guys. If you want the best health care in the world, do what France is doing.

"If the health care system were so great in Canada, the innovative cancer research would be performed there. The best physicians in the world would be flocking there. The best scientists in the world would be flocking there."

No doubt about it, if you want the best surgeons to separate your siamese twins or give you a heart lung transplant, the states is the place to be --although you'd wait longer for it, if you have no insurance. But that's only a partial measure of a health care system -- it only provides an example of the big stuff that wealth can potentially produce.

There are things that can override the so-called "laws" of economics (a field that has more habits than laws, if you will). Great scientists and physicians do flock to Canada, motivated by its quality of life (rated #1 by the UN). Sure, all countries experience some "braindrain", but most people prefer to remain closers to "home". Btw - only 45% of all drug innovations come from the US, so that stands to reason that at least more than half come from the remaining world medical community. And besides newer innovations are only a fraction of what quality medicine is about.

"Americans are paying higher prices for meds specifically because of the price controls your country imposes." Or so those drug companies would have you think.

"The best health care access in the world cannot change what people choose for themselves." I think you're underestimating the preventative power of good old basic health care.

I checked out your links and googled around and couldn't find anything linking France's high health care ratings with decreased immigration. And I don't know where you get the idea that immigrants are a liability to the Canadian health care system (which mostly has to do with distribution issues related to the vast land mass that makes us the 2nd largest country in the world and many pockets of low population density -- and we have some "life style choice" issues of our own, thanks to "Tim Horton's Doughnuts" and spectator hockey, which are practically religions here), since as is the case with the US, despite their lower incomes, they are have lower rates of incarceration, welfare dependence, hospitalization, acute health care usage and other measures usually considered to be the consequences of poverty.

If a socialized system won't work in the states, it won't be the immigrants who tank it, it'll be the real parasites: the insurance companies and other entities in the US health care industry that feed off human suffering.

1) Google US Health Care Quality- Look for how poverty and economics affect the quality of health

2) Google US Poverty- Look for how the majority of those in poverty are immigrants

3) Google Immigration and Poverty- Get more information on those two things

4) Google French immigration policies- Note how, in France, immigration policies have made it practically illegal

Then you'll see the correlation. It took a lot of research, and i didn't originally begin the research connectedly. I was researching Democratic Platforms - Social Health Care, Immigration, and Minimum Wage increases - to see what exactly people found so appealing about them. I discovered how intricately woven the three are and how they self-defeat eachother.

Perhaps you can conduct a thorough examination on those platforms and come to the same conclusion?

I did what you said, googling US Health Care Quality, US Poverty, Immigration and Poverty, and French immigration policies, with and without quotation marks. And then I did the same, adding separately the terms immigrants and immigration. Nothing came up linking immigrant related poverty with any kind of increased burden on your health care system. If anything, immigrants are less likely to utilize health services (perhaps because they haven't yet gotten into the typical North American lifestyle choices yet!)

I'm not saying that you're wrong, and certainly, not all immigrant populations are the same. And I am aware that illegal Mexican immigration has created problems. But I'm not convinced that it compromises your health care systemI to the extend you think it does (or will). In Canada, immigrant poverty tends to be temporary as people adjust to the larger culture. There has been some evidence that immigrants rely less on social services of all kinds because of their family and community supports.

About This Blog

This is a blog about "biblical manhood." I am not here to give Bible-believing men a list of do's and don'ts. Plenty of others already make a living doing that. My intention is provide a scriptural response to anti-male sexism. My intention is to proclaim the truth to the status quo and defend those who have been denied a voice for far too long. In this, I believe I am following the example of my Lord and Savior.